Many Christians in the U.S. today are preoccupied with fixing: fixing the country; fixing the culture; fixing individuals who identify in various ways. Is this what the Bible calls for? And is this a worldwide phenomenon for Christians?

To some extent this is a phenomenon pretty much found in the United States alone. Behind this preoccupation is the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation based on Christian values, and that if the United States abandons those values, the nation will experience a significant decline from its greatness. Those at the forefront of this movement will point to evidence that in some ways the United States is already experiencing the beginnings of decline including a corresponding moral decline, and that the evidence parallels both the growing trend to remove God (and especially in the person of Jesus Christ) from the public square.

Regarding their premise, there is a great deal of evidence that the United States was founded on Christian principles and by mostly Christian political leaders. We can see it in everything from numerous laws, to the theological content of the early McGuffey Readers, to the foundation of colleges and hospitals, to oaths of office and swearing in of witnesses on a Bible, to public statements by political leaders at their inauguration in office, their farewell addresses and speeches at times of national crisis.

But were these the only principles upon which the United States was founded? We might accurately say with a touch of humor that the Founding Fathers relied on both Calvin and Hobbes. Indeed, they were influenced by the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, Montesquieu, Rene Descartes, John Locke, Cesare Beccaria, David Hume, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Rousseau and Plato: all known for varying degrees of secularism in their major writings and some not Christian at all.

Therefore, while we were seen as being endowed with unalienable rights by a creator God, the United States also greatly expanded the rights of a free people to both participate in the political process of the new republic and to enjoy life and liberty and pursue happiness as they saw fit, provided it did not interfere with those same rights in others. So even though these rights come from God, each citizen could choose how to worship God or not worship at all, or even refuse to believe in the existence of God. Certainly many political leaders of that time would have believed in the superiority of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas and therefore would have had little concern about the United States ever abandoning Christianity to any great degree. One of the ways to ensure that, they believed, was to have a well-educated public in at least the basics, what became known as “the three R’s”. From such was spawned an emphasis on the importance of a public school education for all children who reached a certain age and the establishment of most of the early collegiate institutions of the country. (Ironically, most of these colleges are today liberal bastions and harbors of negativity towards Christianity.)

Regardless of the origins of the political system and the prevailing culture in the United States, we’ve come a long way and seen many changes in the 450+ years since the first permanent colony by Europeans was established in St. Augustine, the 400+ years since settlers from England founded Jamestown and the 240+ years since the First Continental Congress of the American colonies met, leading to the 13 colonies declaring their independence from Great Britain less than two years later. In particular during the past fifty years, Americans have moved away from mainline Protestant denominations in general and from organized religion in particular. Many also continue to nominally identify as Protestants or Catholics, but have turned away from strict adherence to Papal authority in the case of Roman Catholics, and local ecclesiastic authority in the case of Protestants, many of whom retain the identity but are essentially unchurched.

At the same time, there has been growth or at least continued strength in various denominations of Baptists as well as in independent evangelical Christian churches (some in small splinter denominations) which include a number of megachurches. It is from these denominations and churches that the greatest hue and cry comes to see the United States either continue to be or return to be a “Christian nation”. But the question is, how should this occur, through politics or evangelism? And if through evangelism or both ways, what should the evangelical part of the message be?

First and foremost, let me state unequivocally that there is nothing in either the Bible or the Constitution of the United States that prohibits Christians (including clergy) from participating in the political process, whether voting, voicing public opinion, running for office at any level, and serving in either appointed or elective offices in any of the branches of government at any level. And certainly the positions and actions of those who serve in government can and must be influenced by their moral beliefs and convictions as shaped by their spirituality. But it must also be consistent with the laws under which they serve and swear or affirm in some way their fealty to. And if those same moral beliefs and convictions cause them to have sharp and deep disagreement with any of those laws, their attempts to change those laws must also be within the framework of the law. Furthermore, if they can no longer abide by the framework of the law, they must be willing to accept the consequences if found guilty of violating the law in a fair and just hearing or trial.

There is, and should be, far less restriction on what is preached or taught within churches and in general the free exchange of ideas in the public square. This is also part of the “American experiment” in freedom, including protections within the Bill of Rights regarding the free exercise of religion. And that free exercise extends beyond mere worship.

But freedom, to be used wisely, demands a high level of responsibility. In his letter to the Romans and two letters to the church at Corinth, the Apostle Paul writes in detail about the balance between Christian liberty and responsibility. Those responsibilities extend to dealings with both fellow Christians and non-Christians, and include a general requirement to obey the laws of the land unless such laws require (not permit) Christians to disobey God’s commandments: in particular, only those commandments that apply when part of a country that is not a theocracy (which is every country other than Israel and Judah from the time of Moses until the diaspora).

Christians ought to take notice that Paul was writing these words from locations and to Christians in locations that were far harsher in their treatment of Christians than anything close to what Christians in the United States experience today. He was writing these tenets that became part of the Biblical canon of the New Testament at a time when he and eleven of the first twelve post-ascension Apostles would be martyred for being Christian (the twelfth, John, sentenced to exile on the island of Patmos for the final decades of his 94 years on Earth). While persecution of Christians in the world is at historically high levels, there is nothing in the United States that even remotely compares to what was experienced by the early Church until the conversion of Emperor Constantine around 312 AD.

So what choice do Christians face? In terms of Christian witness, it is the choice between legalism and love. Love doesn’t mean anything goes and all Biblical standards are thrown out the window. Agape love means primarily caring about others, Christian or non-Christian, looking to lift up and edify other Christians while drawing non-Christians to the love and light of Christ. It means remembering who we were before we were saved and that we still fall short of the glory of God even after becoming new creatures in Christ. And it means remembering how powerful God’s love is; how strong God’s grace is. 1st Corinthians 13 is one of the best known chapters of the New Testament, and one of the best testimonies to the power of God’s agape love (translated as charity in the KJV). The strength of God’s grace is not as well known.

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. – 2nd Timothy 2:1

So I choose agape love over legalism. Here are some examples of agape love in action. One is someone famous in the 20th century, one is someone unknown to all but a handful of people, and one is direct from the Bible. There will be a follow up to this post, a part two, that will deal mostly with a fourth example whose example is especially interesting to me in comparison with my life.

Anyone who watched the movie, “Chariots of Fire”, knows the story of Eric Liddell. His refusal to compete in his specialty, the 100 meter dash because the heats for the race in the 1924 Olympics in Paris were held on a Sunday is a key element of the story portrayed in the movie. It certainly smacks of legalism. But while it might have hurt the chances of his country’s team in one event, it was basically something he imposed on himself. He did not require it of any of his teammates. And it was potentially less detrimental to his team than the refusal of Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax to play on Yom Kippur during key games in a pennant race or the World Series. As it turned out, Greenberg’s Detroit Tigers would win the American League pennant in 1934, Koufax’s Los Angeles Dodgers would win the World Series in 1965 and Great Britain would win the gold and bronze medals in the 100 meter dash at the 1924 Olympics, the race that Liddell refused to run. As for Liddell, he had time to adjust his training to a longer sprint race: the 400 meters. He won the gold medal in Olympic record time, and also captured a bronze medal in the 200 meter run.

The movie also showed how Liddell, born in China, was from a family of missionaries. What is somewhat less well known is what he did after his Olympic triumph in 1924. In 1925, he returned to China as a missionary, first in Tianjin (Tientsin) and was transferred to a poor rural area of Xiaozhang in 1941. The area was so dangerous due to attacks by the Japanese Army that he sent his pregnant wife and two older daughters to Canada to live with his wife’s parents.

In 1943, Liddell was captured by the Japanese with other members of the mission and was interned in a camp. While others, even many of the missionaries, became selfish and cliquish, Liddell’s exemplary character stood out in the worst of times as he tirelessly helped others, especially the elderly and the children.

Many stories of his selflessness survived Liddell and the camp. The one that stands out to me involves him serving as a referee for the boys team sports games like soccer, rugby and field hockey. Originally, consistent with the stand he took at the 1924 Olympics, he refused to referee any games on Sunday in hopes that the boys would spend their Sundays in church and devotions that day. Instead, the boys formed their own informal matches. Reasonably well-behaved when their hero was refereeing, fights broke out among the boys during the Sunday games. When Liddell learned of this, did he punish the boys? No. Understanding that they were boys, not men, and concerned for their safety, he relaxed his strict position about activities on the Sabbath and began to referee their Sunday contests as well.

From an internment camp in China during World War II, we go to a small town in south-central Pennsylvania. The year was 2016.

Mercersburg is a small town of about 1500 people, but some famous people were born there or have lived there. A private prep school, Mercersburg Academy, has educated seven Rhodes scholars, a Nobel laureate, two Academy Award winners and 54 Olympians (12 who have won gold medals). I met one of those gold medalists. Charles Moore Jr., who won a gold medal in the 1952 Olympics at Helsinki in the 400 meter hurdles and a silver medal running one of the legs on the 4 x 400 meter relay team, went from Mercersburg to my alma mater of Cornell, graduating in 1952 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. He is also a member of the Quill & Dagger Society, a senior honorary to which I was selected in 1974. But I’ve already talked about an Olympic gold medalist.

Instead, this story primarily involves the public high school which is named for perhaps its most famous native son, President James Buchanan. And it involves a student there who will never receive world recognition. But I believe she will receive many crowns in heaven.

It began in early March with a local Youth Pastor hearing about The Life Book, which contains the complete Gospel of John. Students are using it to witness to their peers. The pastor was so excited by this that he ordered six cases and shared the information about it at their next youth group meeting. The students eagerly began to make plans to distribute the books to their classmates at James Buchanan High School. But the most eager was Violet Clark. One of the most popular students in school, she asked the Youth Pastor for a full case: 100 books.

Did Violet distribute those books of witness to her fellow students by preaching fire and brimstone and telling them what horrible sinners they are? No! With a big smile and joy in her step, she went from student to student, those she knew and those she didn’t, to hand them a book and share Christ’s message of hope with them. It took her a little over six weeks to share the entire case, sharing the last three just before her 18th birthday.

The day after her birthday, Violet was involved in a serious car accident as she left school. Although the school is not one where prayer is normally promoted, students and teachers spontaneously began a prayer vigil on behalf of Violet. But three days later, God chose to call her home.

In the immediate aftermath of Violet’s death, the school community turned to the word of God that was now readily available, not only to deal with her death, but to find out how to receive the kind of joyful life that Violet lived while she was among them. Many students are coming to Christ, not in response to rebuke, but because Violet and some of her fellow youth group members radiated the love of Christ among them.

From modern day Pennsylvania, we go back nearly two thousand years to eastern Macedonia, in particular to the city of Philippi. Here we look upon two men who have gotten themselves into a peck of trouble. We know them today as the Apostle Paul and Silas, but it was Paul who was the leader.

It is Paul who we will focus on. God could not have picked a more interesting and well-suited person to be both his chief missionary of the Gospel and author of a major part of the New Testament through the letters he wrote to the churches he planted, clarifying some of the finer points of Christian theology and contending with heretical positions that were already creeping into the early Church. As the Church spread into Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece and points west, the early Church membership went from being entirely Jewish to a not always comfortable mixture of Jew and Gentile.

But who better to deal with contentions and heresies than a Jewish scholar who at one time thought that believing that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God was the very epitome of heresy. Saul of Tarsus, who would later be better known by his Roman name, was perhaps the foremost persecutor of these Jewish followers of Jesus. It fact, it was when he was on the road to Damascus to apprehend these followers of Jesus (the name “Christian” was not even being used yet), that Paul had his direct encounter with Christ that led to his 180º change of position on the legitimacy of belief in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. It was such a major change that many of the leaders of the early Church were highly suspicious that it was a trick to enable Paul to destroy the Church by cutting off the head. It would be like Ted Cruz suddenly speaking out as the most ardent advocate of pro-LGBT issues.

But Paul was far more than a zealot. He was a scholar who studied at the feet of the best teachers of the Law that Judaism had to offer in his day. In fact, he was a member of the sect whose name is now synonymous with legalism. He was a Pharisee. And while he preached in the synagogue of Damascus immediately after his sight was restored following his Damascus road experience, he also studied the Tanakh long and hard to make sure that his interpretation of the experience was accurate.

Although the Bible tells us that Paul did not preach with eloquence, by adding a solid scriptural foundation to a compelling testimony of a changed life, he was able to win many converts, both Jew and Gentile, to the early church. As such, he often drew the ire of those who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, whether Jew or Gentile. In Philippi, it was wealthy Gentiles he angered. They incited a mob that brought Paul and Silas to the magistrates who in turn had them beaten and thrown into prison. At this point, we’ll let the Bible tell the story, starting with Acts 16:23.

And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. (Acts 16:23-34)

What brought salvation to the jailor and his family? Was it angry rhetoric directed against the jailor, the magistrates and his accusers? Was it the formation of a protest committee, marching around the jail and shouting slogans? Did a commando raid break Paul and Silas out of prison, taking the jailor and his family with them? No! It was because he saw their concern for him. Not only had they been cheerfully praising God in a situation where most would be surly and grumbling, they did not avail themselves of the perfect opportunity to escape. But Paul, who wrote about sacrificing his Christian liberty for a weaker believer, sacrificed his physical liberty for someone who didn’t even believe in Christ. Yet led by the Holy Spirit to demonstrate humble obedience, Paul won this man and his family to Christ.

Even some conservative Christian websites are talking about the need to return to the primary Gospel message for our witness to the world. Although I don’t agree with every idea stated in the article, I am providing a link to one such discourse. And then the next blog post will look at the fourth and final person in the list I promised, a person some of my transgender friends may be surprised that I am including. But his message fits this theme perfectly.

And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. – Colossians 3:14-15

If God is perfect and all knowing; and the Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired instrument of his grace and peace. How can a contradiction in natural birth exist? How does the Transgender person of soul reconcile their spirit?

Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:13-14:

For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.

Again, a respectful query on reconciliation. Thanks

Hello,

To respectfully seek answers, to reconcile ideas and people, to arrive at truth: these are all honorable aims. I am delighted to respond as best as God lays on my heart.

First, both for ourselves and any other readers, let’s make sure we understand what is meant by soul and spirit. I took the following from the BibleHub website. It is similar to what I found on some other sites as well as confirming my previous understanding.

[T]here is in man a spiritual, reasonable, and immortal soul, the seat of our thoughts, affections, and reasonings, which distinguishes us from the brute creation, and in which chiefly consists our resemblance to God, Genesis 1:26. This must be spiritual, because it thinks; it must be immortal, because it is spiritual. Scripture ascribes to man alone understanding, conscience, the knowledge of God, wisdom, immortality, and the hope of future everlasting happiness. It threatens men only with punishment in another life, and with the pains of hell. In some places the Bible seems to distinguish soul from spirit, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 [and] Hebrews 4:12: the organ of our sensations, appetites, and passions, allied to the body, form the nobler portion of our nature which most allies man to God. Yet we are to conceive of them as one indivisible and spiritual being, called also the mind and the heart, spoken of variously as living, feeling, understanding, reasoning, willing, etc. Its usual designation is the soul.

First, a quick explanation of 1st Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12. My sense is that the inclusion of both “soul” and “spirit” in these verses is meant as an amplification, not as distinguishing. We can see that more easily in the Hebrews verse. When the two-edged sword is described as dividing asunder soul and spirit, it means both, not dividing “soul from spirit”.

So the simple answer is that if humankind, while we walk this earth as corporeal creatures, are not spirit, but have an eternal soul that has a spiritual nature and therefore includes spirit, then the soul and spirit, even for a Transgender, must be reconciled with each other. Otherwise, you would be talking about some sort of split personality. No one I know of, not even our worst detractors, claims that about us.

But let’s look at a broader question of contradiction. Since God is all-knowing (there is no “if” about it) and the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God, then is there some contradiction between people who claim to be born transgender and God’s Word?

Let’s take Psalm 139:13-14 first, since that is an all-encompassing situation rather than a verse that applies to one particular person. I considered this passage so important to discuss that I wrote a three-part blog post on it in the first month of this blog back in November 2013. (The reader is reminded that I was using the older term, transsexual, at that time.)

I will provide a link back to those posts so the reader can have further details. But to summarize for the purpose of this answer, I point out how interesting it is that when these two verses are used as a proof text that transgender is not of God, verse 15 is never included to give the full context of these verses. It is quite inconvenient to their claims of contradiction to call to mind that every one of us, transgender and cisgender alike, was curiously formed in the lower parts of the earth.

When sin entered into the world, death and corruption entered in with it. So while the Lord God has final say over everyone how everyone is formed, no one is born perfectly whole and complete. The imperfections are not sin in and of themselves (think of the passage when Jesus’ disciples ask who sinned, the blind man or his parents). Furthermore, if someone had been born who was without spot or blemish, there would have been no reason for God to have sent His only begotten Son to shed His blood and nail our sins to the cross. Only Jesus, born of the Holy Spirit, could have been the perfect Passover lamb to save us, one perfect sacrifice for all time.

While we are in the Psalms, we ought not forget Psalm 51:5: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. It is another Biblical reminder of our humble origins.

That brings us to the Jeremiah verse that you cited. And guess what? I cited that same verse in Part 3 of my blog post series “I am Fearfully and Wonderfully Made”. Look closely at that verse again. God is not just telling Jeremiah that He formed him in the womb. He is also telling Jeremiah He knew what manner of person he would become. This means God knows Jeremiah on the inside: his heart, soul and spirit, not just his skin color, bone structure and yes genitalia.

Now here’s the question: based on which group of characteristics does God chose Jeremiah to be a prophet, the first group or the second? Obviously the first group. This is how God identifies Jeremiah as a person.

None of this is meant to say or imply that Jeremiah is transgender. What I am saying is that God’s primary identification of us is based on what’s inside, not on what’s outside; the spiritual and eternal, not the physical and temporal. Only a relatively small percentage of people are born transgender. But we have been around since the earliest days of recorded history. I’m not a scholar of ancient languages, but I’m told that the subject of transgender people was dealt with in the Code of Hammurabi. And my learned Jewish friends (as well as Christians who have researched this topic) tell me that in the rabbinical writings of Classical Judaism, there is provision for six genders, not two.

There is one thing that neither you or anyone else I have discussed the topic with has ever been able to produce: a Bible verse that states that the inner spirit of a person must match the outer anatomy when it comes to gender identity. I have been reading the Bible faithfully, daily most of the time, from cover to cover over and over again, for over 25 years. This was always an important topic for me. That verse would have leapt off the page for me. Those Christians who naysay transgender would be raising it as a banner. But they can’t because it doesn’t exist.

But is there scripture that suggests the opposite? I believe so. They are the very words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:12. Jesus describes three categories of eunuchs: those who were born that way, those who were made that way by someone else and those who made themselves eunuchs.

Now the lesson that Jesus is teaching to His disciples directly relates to the ability of a person to resist sexual temptation and therefore be able to remain single without falling into fornication (any sexual activity outside of marriage). But there are two things to keep in mind. First, that Bible teaching can have layers of meaning. Second, when Jesus taught in parables, He used examples and situations that the people of His day were familiar with. Therefore, even though scripture is eternal, Jesus never would have taught a parable that referred directly to computers or nuclear weapons.

Of the three categories, the most familiar would have been those who had been made eunuchs by someone else. Although the Jews did not practice it, it was a familiar practice for the rulers of the neighboring countries to castrate certain people, whether of their own nation or a defeated nation, for various purposes: watching over harems, becoming trusted advisors who would not be aggressive enough to become rivals, and so on. Since these eunuchs were neither born that way nor did so of their own volition, the most familiar category is of no further interest.

The less familiar two categories are where we draw our attention. Remember that Jesus and his disciples would have been familiar with the six genders of classical Judaism.

The person born a eunuch could be someone born with male anatomy but is impotent and acts more feminine upon reaching puberty. Such a person would likely be saris and would be considered male to female transgender today. Or it could be someone identified as female at birth who displays a masculine personality at puberty. That person would have been identified as ay’lonit in Jesus’s time and female to male today.

What of the person who makes “himself” a eunuch? Yes, that could be someone seeking to live a celibate life and needing to take extraordinary means to accomplish that purpose. It was not uncommon for men of the early Christian church to undergo castration to live a celibate life of service. However, a saris could also fit this description: someone assigned male at birth but who now lacks male genitalia, in this case voluntarily ridding themselves of unwanted body parts to live as in the preferred female gender.

It should be noted that Jesus does not speak disparagingly of any of these eunuchs. If He had reason to, He either would have used a different example or phrased the parable in a different way.

We have one more example relating to genitalia (in particular male genitalia) where the spiritual is more important than the physical. Deuteronomy 10:16 taught: Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Nor is this an isolated verse. We see this theme repeated in Leviticus 26:41, Deuteronomy 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:4. And that devout scripture student, the Apostle Paul, picks up this theme in Romans 2:28-29 and Colossians 2:11. These teachings have import far beyond transgender. It permits Jewish women to stand before the cross of Christ and the Throne of Grace on equal footing with Jewish men. And it permits physically uncircumcised Gentiles to do the same. Indeed, this was one of the first debates in the young Christian church when evidence of the Holy Spirit’s anointing of Gentiles was first reported. Would these Gentile men be required to undergo circumcision? It was eventually deemed unnecessary. God had already circumcised their hearts.

Apparently we haven’t come very far in 2000 years. People are still focusing on the less important physical attributes, willing to limit ourselves to what we can see. As God truly observed in 1st Samuel 16:7, man judges by the outer appearance, but God judges by the inner things of the heart. Are we not called upon to grow in spiritual maturity so that we see things as God sees them?

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. – Romans 2:28-29

Now this might sound all well and good. Yet some might ask, “What about theological issues? What does God have to say about this? What does the Bible say?”

The detailed answer is another book, not a letter. But I am not dodging the question. I deal with these sorts of questions on this blog (started in November 2013). I would always welcome a discussion on these topics, whether one on one or with a group, Bibles open. Based on growing evidence that I and many others like me were born this way (this is not a choice), combined with the many verses that show how God identifies people and how we were formed before we were born, I feel more strongly about this now than I did in November 2012. I still uncover other verses from time to time that support this viewpoint. Since you found this letter on my blog, you will find other blog posts where I expound on this topic. Look for the page “Key Bible Verses”, or blog posts under the category “The Bible on Transsexualism”.

I said that I would get back to Pastor, and this is the appropriate point in the letter. I will not mislead you by letting you think that he endorses my opinion in these matters. We have not discussed this topic recently, so he should be the one to weigh in on where he stands at this time. But one of his best qualities (and why you are so blessed to have him as your pastor) is his transparency. My understanding is that his willingness to continue to fellowship with me is based on the following: that Christians are called to love one another; that he considers the totality of what he knows about me and my Christian walk, not just one item, albeit a significant one; his awareness that just as I am not perfect, he is not perfect; his awareness that while he believes his position to be right, that he is not inerrant. And if I have misspoken on any of these or omitted anything, I trust that Pastor will make the necessary corrections.

When I met with Pastor and his wife in January 2012 to inform them of this development in my life and to ask for counseling (which eventually was handled solely by Pastor), he admitted that he did not have a theological knowledge of the topic. He did what he needed to do to get up to speed and I talked to someone he recommended that I talk to. Most importantly, our prayer of agreement was that God’s will for my life be revealed.

With the guidance of the Holy Spirit and affirmation from many (but not all) people: strangers, family members, friends, clients and best of all, solid, conservative Christians, I believe that His will for my life is being revealed. And I believe that I am living that will as best I can, especially in this matter.

New people in my life who I have not told accept me as female and most of the people who I have told accept me as female. Some people who have known me for a long time tell me that “if they didn’t know, they wouldn’t know”. People who have met me recently tell me that they find it hard to believe that I was ever anything except female. Even a number of people who met me for the first time during my last year at CBC are now telling me that they have only thought of me as female. And I was wearing male clothes when I met them.

There are two minor areas of disagreement that I had with Pastor. I am sharing them with you to show how my understanding continues to progress.

One was when I made a statement that there was no verse or combination of verses in the Bible to back a certain point of view (I am pretty sure it was on whether we are born with gender identity and genitalia that always match). Pastor’s reply was to the effect that there are some things that are so universally accepted that they do not need to be included. I let his point stand at the time. Later on, I realized that such a belief does not agree with the evangelical Christian position that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God. If anyone should go to the Bible with any question, and if an answer cannot be found whether by direct statement, induction or deduction from the entire word of God, then the Bible has failed on that point. But it cannot fail and be infallible at the same time.

The other was when we exchanging positions and points of view based on scripture. I would say something from the Bible. Then Pastor would answer it from the Bible. Then I would answer it with something else from the Bible. It was a lively, respectful and friendly discussion, sometimes continuing for a couple of counseling sessions. Finally Pastor threw in the towel (still in good humor) and said that I was smart enough that no matter what he told me, I would always find a way to counter it with something else from the Bible. I also let that stand. But later on, in correspondence with another Christian, a similar remark was made. However, it was not in good humor. And that got me to thinking about the implication of that statement. And it wasn’t long before I rejected it. No matter how smart I am, God is a whole lot smarter than me. There’s no comparison. Now if God finds me in error on this topic, wouldn’t He be able to come up with verses and an explanation that I wouldn’t be able to counter? And wouldn’t a God who has spoken through a donkey and heathen kings be able to speak through a godly Christian pastor or another dedicated servant of the Lord?

More important, Pastor’s continued and steadfast friendship has been highly prized by me. He has always treated me appropriately, in accord with my presentation. He is genuine. He values me as a person and as a Christian. He takes time for my concerns when he derives no tangible benefit from doing so. It is hard enough to find those qualities in anyone, let alone someone who disagrees on such a significant issue.

Now that I know that my transition is no longer secret, I would recommend CBC to anyone in the area. Of course, I would recommend my own church as well!

I will close this by leaving you with two sayings that I have lived by since I started to come out and then a final wrap up.

If I want to be understood, I need to be understanding.

If it took me fifty years to deal with this, I can’t expect you to understand this in fifty minutes.

Yes, my presentation (my clothing, voice and mannerisms) has changed somewhat. I am somewhat freer with my emotions and in worship. I cherish the more open friendships that I have with some women now that a glass wall has been removed. I enjoy the private smiles that I receive from other women when we pass by each other with that quiet acknowledgement of our shared sisterhood. But for the most part, I haven’t changed that much. I can still do math, I can still parallel park, I still have a great sense of direction, I still have the same crazy sense of humor, I still like sports and I still love the Lord.

If anyone would like to contact me or meet with me, I would be delighted. If I was ever invited to speak or attend a function at CBC, I would be honored.

Please know that you are prayed for often, loved always and missed very much.

That I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed. Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. – Romans 15:32-33

When I left my previous church (by mutual agreement with the pastor) in November 2012, I wrote a letter of explanation to be shared with the congregation, but it did not include information about being transgender. When I found out recently that they had been told anyway, this is the letter I would send to my church if I could.

To my dear sisters and brothers in Christ at CBC,

It isn’t often that a person gets to say goodbye twice, or needs to for that matter. But I believe that I need to. For when I said goodbye the first time, while I did not lie to you, I also did not tell you some significant details. I have only recently learned that you have been told those details. But I would like to tell my own story.

First, let me say that now that I know Pastor’s reasons for telling you, I am in agreement with his reasoning. I do wish that he would have trusted me enough to tell me he was going to do that, but it is a minor issue. The bottom line is that both of us had the best interests of the body of Christ at heart. I was concerned that I might cause a church split, whether I stayed or even if it was known that I was not immediately told to leave. I never considered the fact that in light of my significant involvement in the handling of the church finances, my sudden departure for vague reasons might raise questions. Pastor, with his years of experience and leading from the Holy Spirit was sensitive to this issue. I am grateful.

Indeed, I now believe that one of the reasons that the Lord led me to CBC about ten years ago was that Pastor was precisely the right man to be my counselor at this critical time of my life. I know a few pastors who I sat under who would not have handled the situation well. But I am getting ahead of myself.

I have known of my true gender identity since age 7. That is about the average age at which those who are known as either transgender (more recent terminology) or transsexual (older terminology) discover this information about ourselves. I believe that the main reason I didn’t know sooner is that until that age, the primary division in people for me was between adult and child. By the time that I was three or four years old, I was becoming aware that I was considered smart and could do things mentally well beyond what most kids could do. Yet I was still very limited in what I could and could not do. So I wanted to be an adult.

Yet I didn’t want to be female. At age 7, I knew that I was. So I am very aware of the mental difference between “wanting to be” and “knowing I am”.

This didn’t become particularly problematic for me until I was 10 going on 11. In sixth grade I left public school to go to a private school that had grades six to twelve. I feel that the combination of a maturing body, changing voice and seeing the gradual progress of my school mates from children to older teens was the reason. My future was becoming clear to me, and it was not what I wanted.

It was around this time that I started to pray that God would change my body while I slept and I would wake up with a girl’s body. Surely my parents, teachers, doctors and the church couldn’t argue against that, could they? It was also around that time that I came up with a new name for myself. It was perfectly logical to me at the time, and I was surprised to find that very few of us change our names that early in life. I know of no one else who did it the way that I did. To my way of thinking at that age, if I was going to “reverse” from a boy to a girl, then I would reverse my name. And so, with a few tweaks and permutations, I came up with the name by which I am known today: Lois Simmons. (Much later I added the middle name, Elizabeth, to honor the maternal side of my family.)

Have you ever been in a situation where a child brings home a stray? If the parents don’t want to keep the animal, they do everything in their power to prevent it from being named. They know it will be much harder to part with “Fluffy” than with an unnamed stray cat.

In that same way, naming myself was a tether that kept me even more connected to my true identity. For most of my life, I kept considerable distance away from the transgender community. That was especially true in most of the years after I was saved. And even when I did explore on the Internet, my contact with others was either minimal or none at all. So that extra connection was very important to me. The fact that the name survived for fifty years, waiting for me to stop denial, is significant to me. My imaginary friends disappeared by the time that I also knew that Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny were not real. Lois Simmons is the real me.

Even if you start my story from the time that I went away to college and started to live on my own, that story is 42 years long until the time that I started living full-time as Lois, six days after I last attended CBC. All the details would be a book, not a letter. But I can summarize it by saying that my true gender identity survived a decade of struggle to start a career after graduation from college. It survived the disappointment of a failed marriage of less than a year (over issues totally unrelated to gender) and then further disappointment when that person seriously came back into my life and departed again while I was attending CBC in 2006-7 (as some of you may remember). It survived the long hours of hard work that it took to gain clients and build a financial business that at one time included investments, insurance and financial planning. It survived 11 years of extreme poverty that came from a failed second business that was a money pit, a poverty that had ended shortly before I started attending CBC.

My gender identity endured after I was born again and began to grow in my Christian walk. It endured through all my service to Christian ministry (you know which one, name omitted in obedience to not link its name to outside activities) and whatever church I was attending regularly (four during my adult life, including the one I attend now, the Spring Valley Corps of the Salvation Army, where I am an adherent member). It endured despite all the wonderful Christian male role models I met in Christian ministry and in those churches. It endured despite all the other male activities I took part in, whether sports, two years as an engineering major, a male-oriented profession as a stock broker or men’s groups in churches.

It also endured all the years I tried to deny who I really am out of fear: fear of losing my career, fear of what the church would say, fear of what God would do, fear of losing my family, fear of what kind of life I might be forced to live, fear that I would look like a freak or a “guy in a dress”. It endured all the times over the years that I would pray for the Lord to take this away from me. (My previous praying for God to change my body stopped after a couple of years.)

It is important to note that as an adult, I have never prayed for God to “make me a woman”. Nor have I asked that of any person. No operation or anything else can make that happen. Either someone’s innate, core gender identity is female or it is not. As Margaret Thatcher has been quoted, “Power is like being a lady… if you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” When my gender counselor asked me why I was requesting her services, my answer was simply that “I want to know the truth. And I don’t want to make a mistake.”

I have been grieved by some of the things that I have done over the years in my exploration of my identity, especially from late spring to the beginning of autumn in 2011. (When you started to see me clean-shaven, and with longer hair and nails in at the end of 2011 and in 2012, I was already well along in my healing and seeing confirmation that this is who I really am. R. M., thank you for the compliment you gave me.) I am grateful that I never involved anyone physically and never led anyone into a sinful lifestyle online. (In December 2011, I even started to witness to one husband & wife couple who I met on an adult website!)

People who have stayed in my life tell me that I am happier now. That is a wonderful blessing but that isn’t why I did it. I did it to be authentic and that is what I feel I am now. I have more joy, more peace and more self-control. Those are part of the Fruit of the Spirit, which Satan cannot counterfeit. Therefore, they are more important to me.

In some ways, it is better that this information comes to you nearly 3½ years later. Now I can report to you on how things have gone in my life, not on what I hoped they will be. And while I had no idea that this would have ever happened, transgender has become much more visible in society within the past year.

Being part of and serving in the Salvation Army has been a wonderful experience for me. The Lord has honored me by allowing me to become a part of two of the largest worldwide Christian missionary outreach organizations. I am too old to go through the process of becoming an Army officer, but as an adherent member I go out on community outreach up to three times per year, I help with counting the kettle offerings at Christmas and I maintain a list of Rockland churches for the Spring Valley Corps. It was one of the duties I had in my other Christian ministry and it was easy for me to step up and take on that role when I heard that there was a need. For about 15-20 weeks a year, I participate in the Women’s Bible Study at the Corps. Most of the participants have graduated from the Officers Training College and really know the Word! I have learned a lot, and I am blessed that my contributions to the discussions are highly esteemed.

Now when I transitioned, as a person under authority, I willingly resigned from the other Christian ministry. I was making a public declaration that I did not qualify because one of the qualifications of membership is to be male. It would have been hypocritical for me to try to claim the right to remain a member, and despicable if I had followed the advice of a few who wanted me to fight for the right to remain a member. (I dismissed such talk immediately.)

Even here, the Lord has blessed me. One of my remaining friends in the ministry told me that an affiliate program started in 2014. There were no qualifications to join. I became a prayer partner and I donate $10 per month. Because of my regular donation, I received a book on witnessing and occasionally receive some free pocket testaments. And I can also buy more testaments if I run out of the free ones. I recommend it to anyone who would like to increase their witnessing for Christ.

Best of all, I witness and give out many more copies of God’s word one on one now than I ever did as a member previously. No longer carrying around secret shame, I am not encumbered in connecting to others. Slowly the Lord is bringing along my witnessing skills. I praise the Lord for His mercy and grace to me.

I have more to share with you in part two. But it is customary for me to close my blog posts with scripture. Because today is Good Friday and also because I am no longer despising myself in shame, this is the verse that comes to mind:

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. – Hebrews 12:2

We have been seeing great strides recently in legislation, court rulings and executive orders that have made it illegal to discriminate against transgender people. I consider this to be transgender anti-discrimination law, not transgender rights, for just about everything that we have been fighting for has been to be treated like anyone else: the right to safely use a bathroom that corresponds to our gender identity; the right to gain employment based on merit and so on.

We are also seeing backlash, not just in increased violence but also at the ballot box and in state legislatures. A number of laws that legalize discrimination against transgender people have been blooming: weeds among the flowers of gain. Most of them have been killed with common sense herbicide. But South Dakota’s recent weeds have proved to be a resistant strain so far.

State Seal of South Dakota. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

South Dakota State Representative Fred Deutsch has sponsored HB 1008 that would prohibit transgender children from using school bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity and gender presentation. It includes language that requires “reasonable accommodation” for those students that can demonstrate being transgender, said accommodation being various forms of facilities that are either designated as unisex or segregated from the rest of the student population. I am open to such bills being debated openly and fairly with all the relevant facts presented. After all, when no accommodation at all was being provided to transgender students, developments such as the ones in HB 1008 were considered a great advance until application of Federal Title IX (1972 Education Amendments) found that such accommodation did not go far enough.

The bill will now be debated in the plenary session of the South Dakota State Senate on Tuesday. It is predicted that the State Senate will also vote in favor of this message (the South Dakota House passed it by a 58-10 vote) and that Governor Dennis Daugaard will sign the bill into law. Then we shall see how many lawsuits arise in Federal Court. (The bill promises that the South Dakota Attorney General will defend school districts against such lawsuits and will pay all resulting legal bills, including any penalties and awards to the plaintiffs.) This is politics in America as it has been for centuries: two sides, two positions using legal and political processes.

However, it is sidebar remarks by South Dakota State Senator David Omdahl that disturb me far more. His recent remarks from a “legislative coffee” in the district he represents (Sioux Falls) drew gasps from the audience when he called transgender people “twisted”. Then he repeated the tired remarks of needing to protect the children. Which children and from what, Sen. Omdahl? The ones who are never attacked when transgender students are allowed to the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity, or the transgender students who are bullied and attacked merely for going to school?

Yes, adults want to protect children. And knowing the GIGO rule, flawed information will yield flawed legislation and outcries. But what about transgender adults? Surely we don’t need to protect cisgender adults in the workplace from us, do we?

Here we have seen a number of recent victories for transgender people who were wrongly terminated from their jobs or were discriminated against in the workplace simply based on their gender identity. But what happens to transgender individuals who find themselves out of work and in need of employment? Discrimination in the hiring process is much harder to prove. The following story is sobering, for it doesn’t take place in the Deep South or the Dakotas. It takes place in Los Angeles and Madison, Wisconsin.

Once Dina Nina Martinez fully transitioned with name change, appearance and ID with her true gender, the job search became easier. But while in transition, she faced rejection after rejection. And even after living full-time as female, she was rejected from opportunities simply by virtue of being transgender. And now that she has changed locations, the dreaded task of finding a job, difficult enough under any circumstance, is many times more difficult because Ms. Martinez is transgender.

The question is not whether the country can survive being part trans-friendly and part trans-hostile. The question is whether trans-hostile attitudes will become rigid in some states. Will there be some states in the United States where I know I cannot freely travel and therefore should cross off my list?

Laws that are voted in can be repealed. Court rulings can be overturned when the composition of the court changes (as we have been reminded again with the death this weekend of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia). The same is true of executive orders when a new chief executive has been voted into office.

It is much harder to change hearts. But once they have been changed, it is even harder to change them back. There are some who say it isn’t worth the bother, that our opponents will never change their minds about us. We will never reach their hearts.

But in the words of Winston Churchill: “Never, never, never give up.” As long as I have the ability to think and convey my message, I will never give up on changing hearts so that trans-hostile people will see us as people too, not as threats or “twisted”.

And I am reminded that one of the greatest champions of Christianity, the Apostle Paul also known as Saul of Tarsus, at one time was its greatest persecutor. I do not attempt to change hearts based on my strength alone. I do so while walking in the strength and power of the Holy Spirit, covered by the armor of God, bathed in prayer that in everything I communicate the light of Christ will shine.

Someday, one of our greatest detractors will become one of our greatest champions. I hope and pray that I live to see that day.

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. – Acts 9:1-20

This is a story that begins about fifty years ago, jumps to the present and finishes with events many centuries ago.

When I was in college, majoring in government, it was a few years after the Watts riots. As a 12 year old in 1965, all I knew about the riots was that black people had begun to react to the discrimination they experienced with violence: looting and burning commercial buildings, shooting at firemen trying to put out the flames. And I knew that there were times when the smoke was visible about 8 miles due north at Dodger Stadium. At times, the smoke moved over the stadium and the smell hung over the ballpark. When the games were played during the riots, attendance suffered in the midst of a tight pennant race. Fans were offered rain checks in case they were too afraid to attend the home games that week.

It was an event that took away some of the luster of the Dodgers World Championship season, although when you are 12, you try to focus on the game and team you love. These players were my heroes. It didn’t matter what color they were. After Duke Snider was sold to the Mets and then retired, my favorite player was Maury Wills. I was prejudiced … in favor of the “little” players. (Wills is black.)

It affected the team directly as well. Willie Crawford, still a teenager, was a young black player from the curfew area who had signed for a $100,000 bonus the previous year when he graduated from high school. He was mistakenly arrested, one of the 4000 people arrested during the week-long rioting. Catcher John Roseboro spent a night sitting on the front stoop of his house with a gun, when protestors marched past his house. Although very few residences were targeted, it was a tense and volatile time and no one could be sure what would happen.

Some black players drove to and from the park in their uniforms, hoping it would spare them problems from rioters and police. Some had routes to the park that took them through the affected area. Some white team members watched National Guardsmen patrolling in their neighborhood.

Former Dodger Jackie Robinson offered this assessment of the cause of the riots:

“Riots do not happen because … a crowd seeks to restrain an officer from making an arrest. Riots begin with the hopelessness which lives in the hearts of a people who, from childhood, expect to live in rundown houses, to be raised by one parent, to be denied proper recreation, to attend an inferior school, to experience police brutality, to be turned down when seeking a decent job.”

By the time Robinson passed away in October 1972, social scientists had refined their understanding of the riots. While the riots started in Watts and its name was attached to them, they spread beyond the 4 square miles of Watts into other black impoverished neighborhoods, about 50 square miles in all. Researchers expected that the instigation of the riots came from the very worst areas. They were wrong. The primary fomenters of the riots came from the edge of the black ghetto. The explanation offered was that those in the very worst areas were so affected with hopelessness, there was no incentive to initiate action. (This does not mean that they didn’t participate once the riots started.)

The neighborhoods along the edge were somewhat better. But they were still inside and that last leap out of the ghetto to the more affluent white neighborhoods a short distance away seemed to be always just out of reach. Looking back at riots two months later, the Los Angeles Times interviewed a 46-year-old black father of six, and quoted him saying, “If I ever made enough money, I would move out of Watts like all the other big shots. So I’m here, so what the hell. Los Angeles isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Wherever you go, you’re black – that’s all there is to it.”

Over forty years since college, I still remember that lesson learned about riots being fueled by a combination of hopelessness and the prize always just out of reach. It was a lesson that came back to me when I heard the 300 names read at TDOR last month. Something different caught my eye. Acknowledging that it is too soon to show a trend, I still searched for an explanation. It was the lesson of Watts that came back to me.

At the TDOR where I spoke in November, the program committee has adopted a broad definition as to which transgender people and allies to honor and remember as “victims of hate, intolerance, ignorance and prejudice during the past year.” Therefore, we have been including the names of those who were bullied and harassed into committing suicide. This year, the number of suicides, the majority of which occurred in the United States, seemed higher this year. Especially notable was the number of trans masculine teens who committed suicide. What had previous appeared to be nonexistent was now significant. I was at once intrigued, saddened and puzzled by this development at a time we appear to be making solid progress in helping trans youth.

The next day at another TDOR event, I watched the video “Growing Up Trans” (originally aired 6 months ago on PBS’s Frontline). While the vast majority of the parents were supportive (albeit with reasonable questions and concerns about the appropriate way to be supportive of their child), one father was resistant to helping his child transition out of sincere concern for his child’s future welfare. This trans masculine teen was already punching holes in walls at times out of frustration. It appeared that the documentary would end with the impasse unresolved.

But then, an unfilmed postscript was added. A voiceover noted that this teen had been suspended from school for starting a fight. The student he attacked had just begun taking prescription testosterone. It was at that point that the father agreed to the let his child begin to take cross-gender hormones.

It’s not my purpose to address whether or not the father did the right thing. I am shining a light on a level of frustration so great that it would cause an attack on one of the very people this teen should have related to the most.

The pieces were coming together. One more bit of evidence that came my way soon afterwards would make things crystal clear. There was a study done in 2012 of 433 trans youth 16-24 years old who live in Ontario, Canada. The parents of these trans youth were categorized as either very supportive (34%), somewhat supportive (25%), or either not very or not at all supportive (42%). By many measures of mental health and life conditions, those trans youth who saw their parents as very supportive were statistically significantly better off than those trans youth whose parents were only somewhat supportive, not very supportive or not at all supportive.

For those who prefer text to charts, the well supported trans youth were more than twice as likely to be satisfied with life (72% to 33%), approaching five times more likely to have very good or excellent mental health (70% to 15%), more than twice as likely to have very good or excellent physical health (66% to 31%), about five times as likely to have high self-esteem (64% to 13%), more than three times less likely to have symptoms of depression (23% vs 75%), about half as likely to have considered suicide in the past year (34% vs 70%) and over 14 times less likely to have attempted suicide in the past year (4% vs 57%).

Perhaps the saddest statistic of all for those whose parents offer lukewarm to no support is the finding that well supported trans youth were more than twice as likely to be living in adequate housing (100% vs 45%). There may be no clearer statistic to show that while a young person’s view of parental support may appear subjective, adequate housing is a very objective measure of how parental support is demonstrated. Truly supportive parents either allow their trans children to remain at home or they provide continued support for their trans children to make it through the educational system until they can begin their career and find adequate housing of their own. Parents who provide either lukewarm or no support at all appear to be either kicking their children out of the house or driving them out with abuse (including verbal), bullying and harassment.

For those who prefer charts, I have provided them here. (There is also some additional information in them. It appears that those who considered suicide in the past year should also be listed as having a statistically significant difference.)

The survey results are part of the light that exposes the lies of Dr. Paul McHugh and others who claim that transition is ineffective in dealing with gender dysphoria and transgenderism in general. It is diametrically opposed to their claims that the lives of those who transition are not improved by doing so. This shows that the level of support for the transition is as significant as transition itself.

But what about the 2/3 whose parents are not strong in their support? How do they react when they see transgender peers progressing towards life in their target gender, but their progress appears to be denied?

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. – Proverbs 13:12

Hope deferred is not hope denied, but when a person reaches the point where it appears that one’s desires will never come, heart sickness can and has become fatal. Impatience is typical of most youth, and it magnifies hopelessness.

Many trans youth will draw hope from the success of their peers that someday it will be their turn. Any meaningful progress will stir the fires of the optimism of youth. But when progress is not only stalled but crushed, it is more than a dream deferred. It becomes a dream denied. Many years ago, mindful of his first-hand experience in a different marginalized group, Langston Hughes wrote the poem that inspired the title of this blog post, and was in turn inspired in part by Proverbs 13:12.

A Dream Deferred

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore–
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over–
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

To avoid these results, especially dreams exploding inward, we need to find a way to reach those trans youth whose parents are found wanting in support. We need to keep their hopes and dreams alive, not crushed or dried up by hate and ignorance, not rotten and diseased by those who would prey on them and steal their dream, not covered over by vacant smiles hiding a time bomb. If necessary, each one reach one.

We leapt from fifty years ago to today. While keeping our finger in today, we leap back in time many centuries to the prophet Isaiah.

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. – Isaiah 9:2,7-8

There is a group of people who have persevered for over 2700 years to keep that hope alive through many trials, tribulations, hardships, heartaches and tears. I am one of the members of a different group: a group whose people have hope because we believe that this prophesy was fulfilled two thousand years ago by the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. My relationship with God, the love of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit was the number one reason for the success of my transition, especially during those times when I was pretty much going it alone as far as people from my former life being supportive.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. – Luke 2:8-14

I sometimes hear negative comments about Christians who interpret the Bible literally. My reply takes them by surprise at first until I explain. The problem is not belief that the Bible is literally true. It’s that those Christians who disparage the transgender community don’t read the Bible carefully enough and apply all of it as it is written.

Jesus never rebuked anyone for using too much scripture or taking it literally. He did accuse the Sadducees of not knowing the scriptures (or the power of God) when they asked Him about the woman who was widowed in succession by each one of seven brothers (Matthew 22:23-32). He challenged the Jewish leadership by comparing scripture verses that would point to His identity as the Son of God (e.g. that the Messiah is the Son of David, but David calls Him Lord: Matthew 22:42-45 referring to Psalm 110). He accuses the scribes and Pharisees of hypocrisy for being preoccupied with minutiae and ignoring more important matters: judgment, mercy and faith (Matthew 23, especially verses 23 and 24).

He accused them of ignoring the judgment of the prophet Hosea on their forefathers: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. – Hosea 6:6. He accused them of not understanding the message in the story of David and his starving soldiers when the priests fed them the hallowed showbread that only the priests were permitted to eat under the Law. (1st Samuel 21:1-6; Jesus’ teaching reported in Matthew 12, Mark 2 and Luke 6).

Jesus was grieved that the religious leaders in His time did not understand that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: that His disciples did not deserve condemnation for plucking and eating a few grains from stalks in the field on the Sabbath; nor did He deserve condemnation for doing good works on the Sabbath, such as His healing of the sick or infirmed and casting out demons (often by only speaking a word and using no physical activity at all). Most grievous of all was the fact that the ministry and messianic identity of Jesus was confirmed by far greater miracles than displayed by Elijah and Elisha. Yet the scribes, Pharisees and teachers of the Law, who venerated those prophets from centuries earlier, did not accept the message of Jesus for the sake of His good works.

What if legalism had stopped Boaz from marrying a foreign woman? Then he would have never married Ruth, the Moabitess, the great-grandmother of King David. Fortunately, the testimony about Ruth, her goodness towards her mother-in-law, her love of God and her faith and trust in the Lord, was more important to Boaz.

What if legalism had stopped the two men sent by Joshua to spy on Jericho from lodging with a prostitute. Then those men would not have received protection from Rahab, they would have been captured by the people of that land and another generation of the children of Israel probably would have been discouraged from entering the Promised Land. Fortunately for the Israelites, those two men were more concerned with their mission, and they also believed it when Rahab testified her belief that the God of Israel is the only God in heaven and earth. Both the faith (Hebrews 11:31) and works (James 2:25) of this common harlot are praised in the New Testament.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. – John 1:17. Human nature makes it difficult to have both grace and truth in our hearts. We tend to tilt towards one or the other since at first glance they seem incompatible. But what is impossible for man is made possible by God. So our Christian walk requires us to do what God enables us to do: that we so walk as to keep the two in balance at all times. For if we heavily emphasize grace, the result is silly sentimentality and an attitude that anything goes. But if we heavily emphasize truth, the result is dead orthodoxy and loveless legalism, driving away people from God by beating them over the head with scripture.

But don’t ever think that grace is weaker than truth. (Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. – 2nd Timothy 2:1.) Now that’s even stronger than Ajax!

So why do I call legalism ”lazy religion”? Because it is much easier to justify one’s position by pointing to cold, hard facts in scripture, especially the “thou shalt not(s)”. It takes more work to temper truth with grace, to practice speaking grace seasoned with salt instead of the other way around, and to understand the spirit of the law in addition to the letter of the law.

Those Christians who pursue legalism and the letter of the law need to heed these verses:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. – Romans 2:29 (In the same chapter, Paul warns the Church to leave condemning judgment to God because we will all be judged by Him.)

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. – Romans 7:6

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. – 2nd Corinthians 3:6

That sure grabs my attention. I can minister life to people by the spirit of the law, but death to people by the letter. Why would I want to minister death to people? Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it (John 3:17). He came so that we would not only have life, but abundant life. (John 10:10)

In my Christian walk, I have the same choice that God told Moses to proclaim to the children of Israel: I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: – Deuteronomy 30:19

Therefore, it is a joy when I find another scripture passage that illuminates both the letter and spirit of the word; both the grace and truth of Christ: especially as relates to God’s mercy towards those people who are transgender; those of us who were born that way.

I recently came across some passages in Acts (which I have read dozens of times) during the Women’s Bible Study that I attend at my church. The topic was the importance of evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the first Gentile converts so that they would be welcomed into the body of Christ. It starts in Acts 10 when the Lord sent visions to the centurion Cornelius and the Apostle Peter to bring them together. Peter was the one who needed convincing. Had he been stuck in legalism, he would have refused to go to the house of a Gentile (Acts 10:28). But once there, Peter preached the Gospel to Cornelius, his family and close friends who eagerly desired to hear about God. And to the surprise of the Jewish followers of Christ who accompanied Peter, they saw strong evidence of the Holy Spirit being poured out on those who had gathered to hear Peter, similar to what had happened a decade earlier at Pentecost to Christ’s disciples.

But that didn’t end the matter. Now Peter had to go back to Jerusalem and defend his actions to those who want to know why he visited these Gentiles (and even ate with them!) contrary to the Law. Fortunately, Peter was able to recount the whole story and convinced those who originally opposed what he had done that they would also be opposing God if they did not accept that the Lord had chosen Gentiles to be part of the body of believers in Christ.

Then people like Paul and Barnabas journeyed to preach the Gospel in the synagogues in more distant cities where Jews have settled and also to the Gentiles there. From both groups, some believed and some did not. And with these new Christians, both Jew and Gentile, new churches were planted.

But as reported in Acts 15, a new dispute arose. Some legalistic Jewish Christians (mostly Pharisees) came behind the evangelistic work being done and told the new Gentile believers that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised according to Mosaic Law. So now the early Church had to deal with legalism in relation to the Gentiles once again. Those who were bound in the dead letter of the law instead of the living spirit of the law refused to believe that these Gentiles were already saved.

So now a new meeting of the early Church leaders was convened. From the Bible’s “minutes” of that meeting:

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. – Acts 15:7-11

The bottom line is that because of the words of Peter, Barnabas, Paul and James, it was recognized that circumcision was not required for a Gentile to be considered saved and part of the Church. They realized that they were requiring something (circumcision as adults) that they would not have been able to handle themselves. They saw that the presence of the Holy Spirit in a person was what counted, not the particulars of their body. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. – Galatians 5:6

But if legalists had their way, Gentiles would have been barred from becoming part of the Church; at the very least, they would have been required to be circumcised and even then they still might have been made to remain separated from the Jewish Christians. This is very similar to how legalist preachers, misinterpreting scripture, tried to justify the continuance of enslaving Blacks. Fortunately, they also did not prevail; nor did those who tried to justify segregation of the races in all walks of life. And yet, many Christians today, almost all of whom would be considered Gentiles (and more than a few of whom are Black), misuse scripture and ignore mounting evidence, thereby forbidding transgender people the right to be something that they could not bear: denying their own identity.

Can someone get a nose job, or breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, or a cleft palate repaired and still be saved? Yes! Can someone take hormones to treat menopause or prostate cancer and still be saved? Yes! Can someone have gender confirming surgery or take hormones to treat transgender issues and still be saved? Yes! It’s what’s in your heart, your mind and your spirit that matters, not your flesh. And if it applies to one’s standing as a Christian, it certainly applies to one’s standing in the human race.

I am old enough to remember when the original three seasons of Star Trek were on television in the 1960’s. The hard core following of fans (Trekkies) eventually led to movies featuring the original cast, a number of new television series that were sequels plus one prequel, and more recently an alternate reality Star Trek. It has been an impressive run for the franchise.

The Kobayashi Maru test was not introduced until the movie “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”. But it has been revisited a number of times since then in Star Trek literature, video games and even the alternate reality.

In brief, this test was designed by Star Fleet Academy to see how their cadets would react to a “no-win” scenario. There was not supposed to be any way to pass the test in the sense of achieving both of the desired outcomes (rescuing a civilian ship in distress in the neutral zone and preserving the Enterprise and the lives of the crew members).

Eventually, it is learned during Wrath of Khan that Kirk was the only person in Star Fleet Academy history to pass the test. He did so by secretly reprogramming the computer prior to taking the test. Rather than being punished for cheating, he received a commendation for original thinking. However, he is accused at a later date of having cheated death rather than facing it.

Whether it is large or small, most of us have a family. For those of us who are transsexual, intertwined in making the decision to transition is deciding whether to tell our family members. Associated with the decision to come out is the expectation of rejection.

This is the source of Kobayashi Maru for us: that sense that we are in a no-win situation when we come out to family members. We are faced with not two but three choices that appear to be less than satisfactory: tell our family and be rejected; quietly leave our family so they feel rejected and don’t know why it happened; grit our teeth and suffer in silence as we hide our secret behind a mask as we deny ourselves and fend off transitioning.

Like the Kobayashi Maru, each of these choices carries with it a sense of dying. In the first two choices, we die to family. The only difference is who makes the choice to pull the plug. In the third choice we die to self, a little bit more each day. But in some ways, the third choice is an illusion. For most of us, our self-preservation instincts kick in and we narrow the test down to the first two choices. We realize that it is transition or die. But in the saddest cases of all, the trans person chooses physical death. In tragic irony, to spare one’s family of losing the child, sibling, parent or spouse they thought they knew, they cause that very loss.

Family rejection is all too real. This week, you may have read the story of Jennifer Gable. At age 32, Jennifer was suddenly struck down a few weeks ago by a brain aneurysm that occurred without warning. In life, her family rejected her. But an even greater indignity occurred when she died. Her birth family was able to determine how she was treated post mortem. In her obituary, her funeral, her final resting, they denied that Jennifer ever existed. All references to her used the male name she had rejected. For the final viewing and burial, they had her hair cut short and had her dressed in male clothes. In her obituary, they only referred to events that occurred during the portion of her life when she was in her male persona. They covered up anything about her female persona, even though her transition occurred when she was in her twenties. The only pronouns used to refer to her are male.

When we observed TDOR in recent days, we were reminded anew of the indignities that are perpetrated upon those of us in the transgender community and our allies, indignities that accompany the taking of lives. And now we read of a family so hateful toward their own daughter that they would extend those indignities into the grave.

A friend of Jennifer has created a fund to try to set things right. For those of you who believe that this is a worthy cause to consider, here is a link to its GoFundMe page:

So far I have painted the bleakest picture. Not every family rejects. In rare but joyful cases, the entire family accepts and embraces their trans family member. Hopefully, this is happening more often, especially with the families of transgender children who come out.

Then, there are the cases where the reaction is mixed. Some accept and some do not. Yes, that might mean increased family tension, but at least the transitioning person has some family members to lean on.

If surveys have been done in terms of which family members are most likely to be accepting, I am not aware of them. There’s little point in speculating on who is more likely to be accepting. Would mother be more likely than father? Does birth order or the gender of the siblings play a role? Ultimately, all that matters is the individual trans person’s experience. The sample size equals one. How the family reacts trumps the statistics.

People generally want to protect the children. And yet they may be the most resilient and understanding of all the family members. Once again, which ones will accept and which ones will not is guesswork. And it should be remembered that for all family members, the initial reaction may not be the final one. Someone who initially rejects may come around in time.

There are also external factors that influence the decision to acceptance or rejection. In particular, we can look to the categories of culture and religion. Decisions are made in an atmosphere of national beliefs and sometimes regional beliefs. They are made in light of their family’s spiritual beliefs. And it also depends upon whether the family member tends to conform to or rebel against their family’s norms.

I have saved one family member for last. I did so because this family member’s reaction is the most important in terms of future family stability. I did so because this person is a strong influence on the couple’s children. And I did so because this person is the most likely to be negative. I am talking about the spouse.

I am not familiar with any details of an FTM transsexual who was married to a man prior to transition. But I know a few MTF transsexuals who were married to a woman prior to transition. I know some whose marriages ended, some whose marriages are in the process of ending, some who are keeping a marriage together during transition (for some it is a struggle), and some who are facing what might happen to their marriage once they start transition.

This is the relationship that appears to have the most difficult time surviving. Typical comments from the wife are, “I didn’t sign up for this,” or “I’m not a lesbian,” or “I thought I married a man, not a woman.” This is where the no-win situation is the most frequent and most obvious. Transition and the spouse’s reaction to it often splits the marriage apart and leaves little common ground on which to stand. It is a profoundly grievous situation.

Even sadder is when a spouse feels justified in turning the children against the transitioning parent. Of course, we must remember that this often happens during the divorce of a cisgender couple. But it is especially hard on a transgender parent who usually is much more vulnerable and suffering loss from many directions.

Again, I will point out that some marriages do survive, at least in some form. Helen Boyd has written two books about her continuing marriage with a transsexual husband. More recently, Leslie Fabian has written a book in support of her trans husband, describing the three year process of struggling to be accepting and supportive to actually falling in love all over again with the person she married. But they are examples of the exception, not the rule. A husband’s transition is often too much for “till death do us part” and “unconditional love” to bear. And I even know of cases where the wife willingly admits that her husband has become a better person by casting off her mask and becoming her true self, yet still struggles to find a way to stay in the relationship.

Is there a way to implement the Kirk solution to the Kobayashi Maru for transsexuals? If there is, I don’t see it. When a transsexual comes out to family members, people are involved, not computers. But I do have some suggestions.

First, make any amends with loved ones that are due them. Do not require them to do so in return. I am not advising you to ACT like a better person. I am counseling you to BE a better person. Hopefully accepting your true self will help accomplish that. The closer you are to transition, the shorter your time to do this and some may be suspicious of your motives anyway. But it could help with some family members.

Second, plan an overall strategy. In what order do you tell people? Come out first to adults who are most likely to be supportive and an ally with other family members. Come out last to those who are either least likely to be supportive or who are most likely to gossip to other family members that you would prefer to tell yourself. Minor children will almost certainly require some negotiation with your spouse as to how and when they will be told, including who else needs to be present. Some may forbid the children being told at all. This area is especially likely to require help from your therapist/counselor.

Third, tailor your approach to the individual family member. I only needed to come out to one immediate family member, but I did also come out to a close cousin. And while I had to tell some clients and friends in a mass mailing due to time and geography limitations, I did tell a number of others in person. Their attention span, my awareness of their beliefs, my estimation of their likelihood of accepting and any other personal knowledge I had about them all went into tailoring my approach. When I was less confident during my early attempts, I relied more on third party material in case I became nervous. But I also had to guard against overconfidence when things started to go well. And if you like to joke around, you may need to curb it somewhat, and especially be on guard against a joke which could be misinterpreted and bring out the “icky” factor in the other person.

Finally, as a Christian, I relied on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. My own gender counselor closely questioned the decision on who to come out to first in my apartment building. It proved to yield many benefits far beyond where I live. Some of my TG friends initially chided me for being overly cautious and analytical. They later acknowledged how it led to my success. I was following the Spirit’s guidance in these matters.

On an even more personal note, the close family member I mentioned is my brother. Because we had other differences to patch up, I just came out to him two weeks ago. He is struggling with the news, but reports from his wife and from one of my cousins make me hopeful that things will work out.

Many people have asked me why I waited so long to transition, especially when their assessment, based on my testimony and what they see, is that it has gone so well. About a year ago, my client Rachel astutely asked me a similar question, but one closer to my heart. Here’s her question, and my answer (with some recent editing) follows:

Why do you think God made you go through all this? Are you someone he created to remind people that we can become whatever we want to, if we are strong enough and patient enough?

You asked about God. That’s my favorite subject! I consider myself a Christian first (because that deals with eternity), a woman second and a transgendered person next.

Is what happened to me to remind people that they can become whatever they want? Not as I see it. In one sense, yes I am becoming a new identity as I learn and develop a new persona for the rest of the world. But all people are in the process of becoming as they go through different stages of life, school, adolescence, work, family, aging, dying, just to name a few broad categories.

In the broader sense, however, my task was not to become something new. The struggle I had to wage was to become myself … my real self, not the identity that the world handed me (for which no one is to blame, because they were using the only evidence they could have). But yes, I was patient. That kernel of Lois inside of me waited and refused to go away. And maybe I was strong enough, or had the right personality or the right resources (especially the Lord in my life) to hang in there until the time was right.

Some don’t make it. They commit suicide or kill themselves when they violently attack their genitals. Some develop mental health issues such as depression. anger and other problems which mask their repression of their true gender.

In my case, my ability to cope so well may have slowed my progress. Had I gone into crisis earlier, I would have needed to deal with it earlier. But I am so plain vanilla in the rest of my life, it is almost unreal. When my counselor gave me her required intake, she asked me a laundry list of symptoms (eating disorders, problems sleeping, phobias, impulses to hurt myself and so on). I responded “no” to all of them and my subsequent counseling backed it up. My life is akin to the reporter’s alleged question: “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”

I believe God’s timing is perfect. I will discuss in greater detail just what parts I believe God did and did not play in the process. This leads in to the main part of your question.

I don’t believe that God made me go through all of this, whether by that you mean being born with a gender dichotomy between mind and body or you are talking about why I went through it for so many years. (Or maybe you mean both of those.)

Why was I born this way? What’s the bottom line answer to that question?

The physical mismatch with a person’s inner core gender identity is a birth defect. Spiritual corruption or Satan is the ultimate cause of birth defects. In the present age, God has allowed these things, within limits. On a global scale, I believe it is to remind us that we should not set to much stock in this imperfect world. The perfect place we should long for is heaven.

But in some special cases, God allows certain birth defects, crippling accidents or severe illnesses to occur for His honor and glory. A large portion of the ninth chapter of John’s gospel deals with a man who was born blind. As soon as the disciples notice him, they ask Jesus what was the cause of this man being born blind, his sin or his parent’s sin. Jesus replies that neither of those was the cause. Rather, it was so “the works of God should be made manifest in him.” And then Jesus heals the man and the man testifies to the people that his healing came from Jesus.

By the way, this verse is one of the justifications that it is permissible to change the condition in which you were born for the purpose of healing. But perhaps it was only Jesus who was permitted to do this? Not so, for at the beginning of Acts 3, Peter and John heal a man who was born lame. When he enters the temple walking and leaping and praising God, it provides Peter with the opportunity to preach the gospel of Christ in the temple.

Sometimes God does not heal the body. Sometimes the infirmity is not from birth but from an accident. Here is a link to a short video where one of my woman heroes gives a summary of her life story and how God has enabled her to bear her cross.

I know that I could not carry the cross that Joni was required to bear. According to her testimony, she has to turn to God when she wakes in the morning and throughout the day to carry it herself. Then again, she might not have been able to bear my cross.

Getting back to your question: was it God who made me wait a long time before transitioning? The short answer is “no”, but it isn’t a totally satisfactory answer. In Christian theology, a distinction is made between the sovereign will of God and the permissive will of God, as far as it relates to us as individuals or as a nation. The distinction is that God sometimes allows us to do things that conflict with His sovereign will. God has His reasons for making these allowances, including giving us an amount of free will. God knows that He can redeem our going off course without interfering with His perfect eternal plan for the world, and that He will find a way to transform the situation we have created for His greater honor and glory.

For example, it was the sovereign will of God for the children of Israel to possess the Holy Land. It was the permissive will of God that moved Him to anoint a king for them, even though He had warned them against becoming like the other nations and having a king.

So I believe that for the most part, it was the permissive will of God that caused me to wait so long to transition. The reason I believe this is because, as I look back at my life, many of the reasons for the delays are not godly ones. But God still was at work for His purposes during the delay, using me in many years of effective Christian service and to touch many lives in a positive way.

First of all, I do not believe it was God’s sovereign will for me to be born transsexual. I believe that in most cases, God wants people born whole and healthy. In my case, that would have meant having a body that matched my mind, a female body. But when sin and corruption came into the world, the Bible teaches that it allows Satan some power in the world. As I stated earlier, I believe that generally speaking, it is Satan that causes birth defects.

For the most part, it was my hesitancy, my failure to act, that caused the delays. And the main reason behind most of that hesitancy was fear. But fear is not from God. “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” (2nd Timothy 1:7)

There was fear of what my parents would do, fear of how my peers would react, fear of punishment, fear of rejection, fear of ridicule. Based on things I would read or hear, there was fear that God did not approve, while in reality, I didn’t know for myself what God thought of it. (We should act out of desire to be obedient to God rather than fear of being disobedient.)

Then, as I got older, there was fear of losing income, jobs, or career. There was fear of getting caught up in an unhealthy lifestyle, fear of AIDS, fear of the violence that was so prevalent against MTF transsexuals and still continues at a disproportionate rate today. And the other fears of losing friends and family and displeasing God continued.

It is an oversimplification as other factors were involved, but I sometimes tell people that I transitioned because I became more fearful of not doing it than doing it.

Yes, every wagging finger of disapproval, every nasty joke, every report of a transwoman suffering violence or dying of AIDS, every thundering pronouncement from a pulpit or theologian’s pen that transsexualism is one of the vilest sins, every report of a failed attempt to transition: all these came from outside of me. But the way I reacted to them was my choice. Others my age knew and heard all these things and transitioned anyway.

To be fair to myself, many of my generation also tried to “cure” themselves before finally admitting the need to transition. And many of those who transitioned against all the odds did so because they were more desperate than I was. For them, it was either transition, severe self-mutilation or suicide.

The only part of the delay that was in accord with God’s sovereign will was that after I was saved, I needed to know what God’s word said about the matter. And this is the one area where God clearly contributed to my delay. For in the past two years, God has opened my eyes to a number of verses that speak to the issue. It is reasonable to say that I was not able to see these verses because the topic is treated in an obscure manner in Scripture; that I needed more familiarity with the Bible, more maturity, more life experience and even more motivation to look more diligently.

It also took time for medical science in the areas of behavior and mental health to catch up to the truth of what being transsexual really involves. It took time to come to the understanding that this is nature, not nurture. We are born this way. We don’t have a choice in the matter. Until I learned these things, I couldn’t properly apply Scripture to the situation.

Even so, God could have revealed these verses and their interpretation related to gender at any time. It is written in the Bible that the Holy Spirit teaches us all things.

So did God cause the delay and if so, why? Based on what I have written, I will let you sort it out for yourself. For me, I have learned to trust God’s timing and purpose and I don’t need to know every reason why. Considering the nature of God, I am satisfied that while I will have understanding in some things, other things are too lofty for me. Maybe I will find out in heaven, if it still matters by then and is important for me to know.

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. – Proverbs 3:5-8

(If you have not done so, please read the previous two posts on this same topic before reading this post.)

I am stating right up front that this post on the Apostle Paul in no way questions his cisgender identity. But on more than one occasion, he goes into detail about his identity in a way that can also shed some light on our discussion of how God see us and what is the source of various elements of our identity. This passage requires much discernment, for it could be used to justify that transsexualism is not sin and also to justify that it is sin unless we add in other points we have seen either in the Bible or in scientific evidence.

The remarks of Paul that I will focus on are found in Philippians 3:3-7:

“For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.”

Paul starts off by stating his Jewish identity. Gentile men and boys who had received the Holy Spirit and the gift of salvation, were not required to go through circumcision. It had been made clear that this step was no longer necessary to receive the highest spiritual blessings of God.

He then goes on to add that he has no confidence in the flesh. Why? Because he understands from the word of the Lord that the flesh doesn’t profit anything. And yet, if you look at his life, especially before his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, he had a great deal going for him when it came to identity based on earthly things.

Paul gives a partial list, the items that would be of greatest interest to the members of the church in Philippi (especially the Jewish Christians). He is a child of Israel, circumcised on the eighth day; descended from the tribe of Benjamin; an exemplary Jew under the law as a Pharisee and blameless concerning righteousness. In fact, so zealous was he for the law that he persecuted the followers of Christ.

Elsewhere in the Bible, Paul makes mention of the fact that he studied under a renowned teacher, Gamaliel, and that he was born a Roman citizen. He did not know it before he was saved, but God was preparing him, someone with an extraordinary heritage and credentials, to be His ambassador to the Gentiles while being able to legally do things most Jews could not.

Once Paul’s eyes were opened to the true identity of Jesus, having received a new identity in Christ, all these other items of identity were unimportant and easily cast aside or downgraded. No, his circumcision was not reversed, nor his birthright as a Jew and Benjamite, nor his Roman citizenship. His training under the Law was not forgotten. Indeed, his understanding of the Law and the Prophets would enable him to become the New Testament’s most prolific writer, building upon his prior training with the knowledge of the Gospel.

However, there is a major part of his identity that Paul never talks about at all. He mentions that he was circumcised, so we know that physically he was a man with male genitalia. But he never talks about his gender identity as a male (and there is no doubt that he was of the male gender). It is not something he can count as loss. Why? Because it was a part of him that he was born with, one that cannot be changed.

Part of the identity he talks about involves things he was born into. But they were only a part of him internally to the extent that he decided that they should be. Citizenships could be renounced or revoked. Heritages can be repudiated. He could have chosen at some point in his life to stop following all of the Law instead of a select few items that were changed when God, through Christ, gave us a better covenant.

Identities based on behavior are changed when the behavior changes. Consider a 13-year old kid with a reputation as a punk and wise guy. It may take a while for others to notice that a true change has been made, but if maturity and life experience bring about positive changes, the 13-year old wise guy is now a 30-year old standup guy. But gender identity goes far deeper. It is innate, intrinsic and immutable. Do you disagree or are not sure about that statement? Then do this. Go to a nearby shopping mall with a decent amount of adult traffic. Ask 100 men when they decided to be male and 100 women when they decided to be female. I would wager (no money, of course) that if 100% of the respondents didn’t give you an answer that in some way indicated that they never made such a decision, always knew their gender and never saw the need to change or question it, it will be very, very close to 100%.

I do not want to claim that Paul said or wrote things that are not part of the record. He never talked about the source of gender (is it the mind or genitals?) or the immutability of gender. But can we agree that it is highly likely, close to a 100% probability, that if asked that same question as the 200 people in the mall, Paul also would have said that he never decided to be male and he always knew that he was male?

From the statistics and charts I have seen, the same survey given to 100 MTF transsexuals and 100 FTM transsexuals would produce similar results as one given to cisgender men and women. 99+% are aware of their non-conforming gender identity by the early teen years with an average age of awareness at seven. (Finally, something for which I am average!)

This is the very point I am making. The vast majority of transsexuals do not decide their gender identity at some point in their life, exactly the same as what cisgender people experience in this regard. The theory of gender identity being learned rather than innate is now widely discredited, with widespread failure of treatment of infants based on that theory at the forefront of the evidence. For more information about that issue, do an internet search for Dr. John Money and David Reimer.

Of all people, Christians should be among the most understanding of transsexuals and immutable identity. For most Christians believe in the immutability of their Christian identity. It is the belief in eternal security: once saved, always saved. Both gender identity and Christian identity come at birth. For gender, it is physical birth, the delivery of a baby from the mother’s womb. For Christianity, it is spiritual birth, i.e., being born again. It is his Christian identity that Paul is emphasizing to be far more important than any other identity he possesses.

While we have no direct statement one way or the other in the Bible about how God views transsexuals, we have seen a number of verses that show that God focuses far more on what is inside of us: our spirit, our character, our heart for God and the other virtues that God prizes. I am long past wondering how God views people. Cognizant of God’s attributes and His character, the idea that He would focus on our physical body – and particularly our genitals – to define us has become downright creepy and repugnant to me. That is not the God I have met in the pages of the Bible and grown to know and love.

In a post to be published soon, I will look at questions that every person who denigrates transsexuals should answer. Some of those questions will apply more to Christians, others will apply to anyone who considers the Bible to have some level of authority, and some will be for anyone who is negative toward transsexuals.

My current plan is to post regarding New Year’s Day before returning to this theme.